If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Understanding Leftists

Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.

Just look at the standard arguments

Bush just wants to take of his oil buddies
The rich are getting richer
Republicans don't care about the poor

None of these are defined statements that can be objectively proven true or false. They are not even worthy of consideration in a debate. Unfortunately, too many people in this country lap this nonsense up.

We may not collapse as a society. But unless something changes, I see us becoming another Euro welfare state.

Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.

You mean something like this;

Whatever he spend on this party, it commemorates the darkes tday in america since Pearl Pearl Harobur and 811 combinded.
__________________
Bob Gutermuth
Canvasback ChesapeakesBAN LIBERALS NOT FIREARMS!

The right is blathering much more. There are posts here lately speaking of
insurrection, insurgency, secession and impeachment, and they are not coming from the 'irrational' left.

JD

One cannot reason someone out of something they were not reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

Whatever he spend on this party, it commemorates the darkes tday in america since Pearl Pearl Harobur and 811 combinded.
__________________
Bob Gutermuth
Canvasback ChesapeakesBAN LIBERALS NOT FIREARMS!

The right is blathering much more. There are posts here lately speaking of
insurrection, insurgency, secession and impeachment, and they are not coming from the 'irrational' left.

You mean something like this;
The right is blathering much more. There are posts here lately speaking of
insurrection, insurgency, secession and impeachment, and they are not coming from the 'irrational' left.

Bob G. is more of a populist, like O'Reilly. When oil prices were racing up he was on the same warpath as you lefties. Poor choice of an example.

I wrote about secession and I think it worth consideration. I realize it won't happen because there is only about 5-10% on each side who are truly committed to their principles and the rest of the country watches American Idol.

While you quote Bob G., I could quote the leadership of the D. Party and the so called intellectuals on the left.

Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.

Just look at the standard arguments

Bush just wants to take of his oil buddies
The rich are getting richer
Republicans don't care about the poor

None of these are defined statements that can be objectively proven true or false. They are not even worthy of consideration in a debate. Unfortunately, too many people in this country lap this nonsense up.

We may not collapse as a society. But unless something changes, I see us becoming another Euro welfare state.

In fact, we seem to have developed an interesting pattern of argument here.

First a conservative will post an opinion piece containing no empirical information but lots of "factual" assertions.

Second a liberal will question those assertions posting contrary empirical evidence.

Third conservatives will challenge the methodology behind the evidence posted but offering no counter evidence.

Fifth, the conservative condemns the liberal post and poster as an irrational, unpatriotic member of the socialist conspiracy.

A couple of times I tried to break the pattern by simply asking for any evidence supporting the initially posted assertions. With the exception of the recent thread on the Rahms Curve, where the posted response was an unidentified Heritage Foundation article, I haven't seen a lot of responses. Now you seem to be trying to break the cycle yourself by skipping all the preliminaries and going straight to step five: "Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.".

My observation is that the more reasoned and fact based the argument, the more irrational will be any ideologically based response. I am a liberal. I've never made any pretense otherwise. However, before I am a liberal I am a pragmatist. In my mind, the first test of every policy is "does it work?" If it doesn't, the ideology is irrelevant. Science, engineering, and economics are not political, they are analytical and evidence based. They may have political implications. However, if your ideologies cannot stand the test of fact-based analysis, they are worthless. Matters of faith are neither analytic nor fact-based (if they were, it wouldn't require faith to adopt them).

My biggest problem with the divisiveness that we have seen eating at our country is that it has placed ideology before reason. All facts are deemed to be matters of opinion to be adopted or shed when convenient. We are taking on many of the traits of a theocracy, blinded by the flags of our morality.

By the way, you gve three examples of "liberal" arguments that cannot be objectively proven. I believe that I presented some pretty convincing facts demonstrating that since 1979 "the rich have gotten richer". Of the three you mention, that is the only one that I have personally asserted.

Rule #1 - They are irrational.
Rule #2 - The more passionate their beliefs, the more irrational they are.

Just look at the standard arguments

Bush just wants to take of his oil buddies
The rich are getting richer
Republicans don't care about the poor

None of these are defined statements that can be objectively proven true or false. They are not even worthy of consideration in a debate. Unfortunately, too many people in this country lap this nonsense up.

We may not collapse as a society. But unless something changes, I see us becoming another Euro welfare state.

Equating aborting a third term viable fetus with applying the death penalty to some deserving psychopath.

Rarely considering the law of unintended consequences as it relates to their view of environmental issues especially when forcing changes or advocating change to existing conditions. Example forced use of ethanol. Their hate of oil companies so skewed their logic that anything they perceived as harming big oil had to be good for the environment.

Proclaiming to be advocates of environmental issues yet rarely do their lifestyles differ appreciably, as it relates to conservation, from those they advocate against. In many cases, they use more resources than those they advocate against. Examples: Obama wanting the White House warm enough to grow orchids, Al Gore’ foibles are legendary as it relates to his home. Yet, President George W. Bush really lived the conservation lifestyle at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. He takes advantage of geothermal, passive solar, water collection among other conservation methods. Clinton/Gore are not noted for adding any conservation to the white House, yet President George W. Bush did a few things in the White house to conserve energy including motion sensor activated lighting and the installation of highly efficient air conditioning system. So who walks the walk and who talks the talk and who is considered the environmentalist?

They claim to be advocates of free speech, yet go to virtually any college campus and any invitee brought there to speak about an issue that isn’t in line with the left wing world view is shouted down and isn’t allowed to speak. Attempting to use the fairness doctrine to force media companies to assist them with propagandizing the nation with untenable positions that the market of ideas is tired of under the guise of equal time/free speech.

Claiming the first amendment means everyone, yet the second amendment doesn’t.

Claiming the Constitution is a living document, whatever that means, and isn’t to be taken literally.

subroc

Article [I.]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.